Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

Thu Dec 16 04:14:46 UTC 2010

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr+nanog at latency.net> wrote:
> I don't see how this point, however valid, should factor into the
> discussion.  Missing from this thread is that Comcast's topology and
> economics for hauling bits between a neutral collocation facility and
> broadband subscriber are the _same_ whether they ingest traffic by way
> of a settlement-free peer, customer, or paid transit connection.

Given that transit must be an incredibly small portion of Comcast's
cost to provide IP service to its customers, I think there are only
three possible reasons why Comcast would focus so much energy on
congesting transit to force content networks to purchase connectivity
for them, rather than upgrade transit or engage in more peering:

1) Comcast believes they can exact a great deal of revenue from
content networks.  For this to be comparable to their captive
customers, per-megabit rates must be reminiscent of pre-Level3 days,
when $30/Mb was a bargain.  This would spell bad news for Netflix.  Of
course, since cable companies typically must pay network affiliates
and media companies great sums for television programming packages, it
is in direct opposition to the TV content/delivery model.  It would be
hard to argue both sides if both businesses were faced with
like-minded regulators.

2) Comcast is making its engineering decisions in an ego-driven
manner, with little or no practical basis for their peering or transit
purchasing strategy.

3) Comcast is hoping the phrase "net neutrality" becomes a thing of
the past, and that, at some point in the future, they will be free to
block or QoS down anyone they please, including content networks,
search engines, or MP3 stores that compete with their own offerings.
I bet Comcast would love to have a few cents off every iTunes purchase
through their network, a handling charge for every amazon.com
transaction, or to coerce a million Netflix subscribers into a
Comcast-owned service.  This is as good a way as any for Comcast to
argue their side to potential regulators.

In any case, the "net neutrality" side gains credibility anytime a
media company can be made to look like they are constraining users'
choices by exacting a price from content providers.  There has been
talk of regulating Internet peering on this list since DIGEX
disconnected from ANS, if not before.  Reasons in favor of doing it
continue to become easier for a lay-person to understand.  In my
state, there is a law against walking down the street with an ice
cream cone in your pocket.  I don't know the origin of that law, but I
strongly suspect some person did it enough times, for a dumb enough
reason, to attract legislative interest.  Comcast should keep that in
mind before engaging in further peering brinkmanship.

-- 
Jeff S Wheeler <jsw at inconcepts.biz>
Sr Network Operator  /  Innovative Network Concepts